Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court issued a slew of directions regarding the conduct of counselling for NEET-PG (National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test- Post Graduate) to tackle the malpractices of seat-blocking for admissions to post-graduate medical courses.

The bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan was considering the issue of large-scale blocking of seats during the Medical Admissions/ counselling procedure for NEET PG exams.

The following key directions were issued by the Court :

(i) Implement a Nationally synchronized counselling calendar to align AIQ and State rounds and prevent seat blocking across systems.

(ii) Mandate Pre-Counselling Fee Disclosure by all private / deemed universities, detailing tuition, hostel, caution deposit, and miscellaneous charges

(iii) Establish a Centralized Fee Regulation Framework under the National Medical Commission (NMC)

(iv) Permit upgrade windows post-round 2 for admitted candidates to shift to better seats without reopening counselling to new entrants

(v) Publish raw scores, answer keys and normalization formulae for transparency in multi-shift NEET-PG exams.

(vi) Enforce strict penalties for seat blocking including forfeiture of security deposit, disqualification from future NEET-PG exams (for repeat offenders), blacklisting of complicit colleges.

(vii) Implement Aadhaar-based seat tracking to prevent multiple seat holdings and misrepresentation

(viii) Hold state authorities and institutional DMEs accountable under contempt or disciplinary action for rule or schedule violations.

(ix) Adopt a Uniform Counselling Conduct Code across all States for standard rules on eligibility, mop-up rounds, seat withdrawal, and grievance timelines

(x) Set up a third-party oversight mechanism under NMC for annual audits of counselling data, compliance, and admission fairness

In the judgment, authored by Justice JB Pardiwala, concerns were expressed about the practice of seat-blocking.

"At the outset, it is to be noted that the NEET-PG counselling process was conceived as a transparent, merit-based national mechanism for allocating postgraduate medical seats. However, over time, it has come under increasing scrutiny for facilitating widespread seat blocking. This malpractice distorts the actual availability of seats, fosters inequity among aspirants, and often reduces the process to one governed more by chance than merit. Seat blocking is not merely an isolated wrongdoing – it reflects deeper systemic flaws rooted in fragmented governance, lack of transparency, and weak policy enforcement. Although regulatory bodies have introduced disincentives and technical controls, the core challenges of synchronization, real-time visibility, and uniform enforcement remain largely unaddressed. Achieving a truly fair and efficient system will require more than policy tweaks; it demands structural coordination, technological modernization, and robust regulatory accountability at both State and Central levels.

Seat blocking in NEET-PG counselling occurs when candidates temporarily accept seats, only to abandon them later after securing more preferred options. This leads to those seats remaining unavailable in earlier rounds and opening up only in later stages, disadvantaging higher-ranked aspirants, who may have already committed to less preferred choices. Delays in state counselling, last-minute seat additions or deletions, and lack of coordination between quotas worsen the issue. As a result, lower-ranked candidates can secure better seats by taking risks, while merit-based selection is undermined."

What Led To The Present Litigation?

The above directions were issued in a challenge by the State of UP and Director General of Medical Education & Training, Lucknow, U.P, to an order passed by the Allahabad High Court in 2018

The High Court, in a writ petition, was dealing with the concerns raised by NEET PG aspirants from the academic years 2017-2018. The grievance of the aspirants was that candidates who had already been allotted seats in the first and second rounds of counselling were again permitted to appear in the mop-up round.

It was alleged that a number of seats in the Radiology course were available in the mop-up round and were allotted to candidates who were less meritorious than the writ petitioners/aspirants, including those who had already participated in the earlier rounds of counselling.

The High Court then passed the following directions :

(1) Director General to give compensation to the writ petitioners of Rs.10 Lakhs each within 4 weeks from date of the order ;

(2) Principal Secretary, Medical Education, Government of U.P., Lucknow to take this fact into consideration of large-scale blocking of seats and come out with a foolproof admission procedure, which would eliminate such blockage of seats and ensure that maximum number of seats are filled up in the first and second round of counseling;

(3) Principal Secretary to hold an inquiry into the circumstances of diluting the admission procedure and allowing the candidates who had appeared in the first and second round of counseling to be considered again in the mop up round in the garb of misinterpreting the orders of the Supreme Court. Such inquiry shall be made within two months and action be taken against the erring officials;

(4) For future admissions, after the first and second round of counseling, a window should be opened for the candidates who had taken admission to upgrade their stream and thereafter allow the remaining seats to be filled up in the mop up round.

The Supreme Court had in April 2018 stayed the High Court's directions.

The Court noted that several reforms were later brought in by the authorities to streamline the counselling process.

The Court noted that in 2021, following the directions in the case Nihila P.P. v. the Medical Counselling Committee, the Medical Council Committee of Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Union of India formulated a scheme for AIQ counselling, which proposed 4 rounds of counselling.

The Supreme Court observed that the subsequent reforms brought by the authorities directly address the concerns raised by the High Court. At the same time, the Court felt the need to issue certain directions to "ensure the effective implementation of the revised counselling framework, thereby upholding the principles of merit, fairness and transparency."

The Court also reduced the compensation amount awarded by the High Court to the two candidates from Rs 10 lakhs each to Rs 1 lakh each.